Re: Humanoid Aliens

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

 

It's simple really, I demonstrated the argument earlier on. There is life on this planet, therefore there is no reason to believe there isn't life on other planets . We can generalise from the particular of life on earth, to life on other planets like earth. Just as we can generalise gravity on a random planet in a universe from the particular of gravity on earth. It is setting up a relationship of invariable concomitance. It's as valid as any other scientific generalization.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The reason why you can "generalize" gravity on other planets, is due to its mass. So, when trying to calculate the gravity on other planets, we look at its mass, moons, and the orbit around its star, and use calculations to come to the conclusions. And gravity is all around us, therefore, we know it actually exists. Life on other planets, is based on assumption. Any kind of equations for life on other planets is just that, "assumption", and is generalized based off of that. Its not valid, when there is no actual basis for the actual estimate. If I go to a farm that has eggs, flour, and milk, doesn't mean that there is cake lying around.

As it stands there are estimated to be trillions of earth like planets in our galaxy.

My definition of "Earth like" planets would be one that could harbor life. Not a planet that has the ingredient to hold life. In order for carbon based life to exist on a planet, you need water, which some planets supposedly exist in the universe, but what ISN'T common, is the correct distance around their Sun-like-Star. Its like saying, you can mix all the ingredients for a cake correctly, but if you put it in the oven to short, it wont bake correctly, and if you keep it in for to long, it will burn. Its not a cake, its just a mess. And according to everything I can find, every planet-discovery that has been detected, has shown the wrong conditions to harbor life. Sure, they hold some ingredients, but its not enough to "bake" correctly. Remember, we're looking for cake, not flour here.

I don't find any estimation/hypothesis valid to say there is life outside of this planet, but more of a belief left to faith. You say, "since there's life on this planet, that its a valid hypothesis to think that there's life on other planets"? But its just assumption built up from theories, with no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Its almost like saying you think that today the times 1:04am and 1:20am coexist at the same moment in time. We had evidence earlier today that 1:04am did indeed exist, but once 1:05am came about, that time was over, and we were heading into the future towards 1:20am, therefore, they don't exist at the same time. Sure, both were observable to us, but we know through calculation that they don't exist at the same time. Maybe there was life on other planets millions of years ago, but then died out, and now we exist for this moment in time. And when we die out, another will pop up, etc etc.

Basically, thats why I don't think the ETH is as "valid" as you like to constantly put it.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


This is not a great argument as it is false... "gotacha" kinda answer..

You see the reason he would not think of people jumping out the walls at him is the very same reason he thinks there are no alien / human style aliens..

why would a person think there are aliens visiting earth when it sounds so obersed as people living in the walls...

proof does not play a roll in the sanrio you are painting.. try to put your arugment based on methord and not what ifs or papers or witness but logic and probility..

its harder to debunk and it makes you look like your willing to be in both camps without putting down each side for having there own reason for there case..

We are only here to debate the question of could we get human looking aliens.. not who is right or wrong about it but the methord..

Please stay on topic you and some others are all arguing amungst urselfs

thats why the mod warned on here lets not forget back on topic!!

reply to post by TravisT


I don't find any estimation/hypothesis valid to say there is life outside of this planet, but more of a belief left to faith. You say, "since there's life on this planet, that its a valid hypothesis to think that there's life on other planets"? But its just assumption built up from theories, with no evidence to support the hypothesis.

This is a great point hes making.. I do think there are aliens.. but im open to more than just one idea.. look at this..

there could infact be NO aliens in our entire universe, we also theorise that we have more than one universe and time binds them all in some way "theory not fact btw"

that would STILL give rise to aliens visiting earth that look like man because they are man in another universe/dimention/timeline whatever..

its far more complex than just life on another planet for me. i like to think of all the options and use the evidence we have to point out theorys

thats the way a debate works and for me its better to argue the evidence / possiblity / logic than with someones idilogicaly views

thats what made people think the world was flat "idioligy"

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
proof does not play a roll in the sanrio you are painting.. try to put your arugment based on methord and not what ifs or papers or witness but logic and probility...

Child's arguments may be right in principle, but not necessarily so in practice. Such an argument does not have to rely on evidence; if there is a failure of evidence to support the conclusion desire, principle can be substituted instead.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Totaly agree.

This is why i said on what methord does one get to the conclution ?

It is better to put forward a methord then on can argue about the methord and not a view point. That is when idiolgy come into play.

Im right coz i said so mentality.. if one says how one could have the possibility more than the other one must provide a methord that would put the odds in your favour

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The reason why you can "generalize" gravity on other planets, is due to its mass. So, when trying to calculate the gravity on other planets, we look at its mass, moons, and the orbit around its star, and use calculations to come to the conclusions. And gravity is all around us, therefore, we know it actually exists. Life on other planets, is based on assumption. Any kind of equations for life on other planets is just that, "assumption", and is generalized based off of that. Its not valid, when there is no actual basis for the actual estimate. If I go to a farm that has eggs, flour, and milk, doesn't mean that there is cake lying around.

That was actually a far better counter-argument than I have seen so far. I hope this standard is kept up. In any case I don't think it refutes my argument.

You say gravity is due to mass.

That is what I said as well that we make a scientific generalization between mass and gravity. It may turn out that mass has nothing to do with gravity, that is logically possible, but at the moment because mass and gravity are observed together we generalise and establish relationships of invariable concomitance. We do the same with time, as time flows forwards on our planet, we assume that time is flowing forwards on every planet. Again, according to scientific logic, it is a valid generalization.

Similarly, we know there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between the conditions on life on our planet and the conditions of life on other planets, and therefore just as we can conclude gravity on another planet, we can generalise life on an earth-like planet.

I am a bit cautious of the qualification of earth-like planet by the way. It is observed on earth itself that life can survive in the most extreme of conditions from extreme cold to extreme heat.

My definition of "Earth like" planets would be one that could harbor life. Not a planet that has the ingredient to hold life. In order for carbon based life to exist on a planet, you need water, which some planets supposedly exist in the universe, but what ISN'T common, is the correct distance around their Sun-like-Star. Its like saying, you can mix all the ingredients for a cake correctly, but if you put it in the oven to short, it wont bake correctly, and if you keep it in for to long, it will burn. Its not a cake, its just a mess. And according to everything I can find, every planet-discovery that has been detected, has shown the wrong conditions to harbor life. Sure, they hold some ingredients, but its not enough to "bake" correctly. Remember, we're looking for cake, not flour here.

Well the diference is here you know how the cake bakes and how the ingrediants are mixed together. However, in the cake of life and the ingrediants of the conditions of our planet we don't actually know how it all happens. So we cannot really say how life happens, what conditions are required, what combinations and permutations, what chances etc etc All of this is unknown. The only thing we can know that life on planet is a known phenomenon, and we have no reason to believe that it cannot happen on another planet.

Again I said about why I am cautious with the qualification earth-like, but there is no reason to believe that a planet like Mars or Venus cannot support some kind of life. We cannot say for certain because we have not been there. Indeed, we might be told what is there, but that is subject to whether you believe it or not.

I don't find any estimation/hypothesis valid to say there is life outside of this planet, but more of a belief left to faith. You say, "since there's life on this planet, that its a valid hypothesis to think that there's life on other planets"? But its just assumption built up from theories, with no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Its almost like saying you think that today the times 1:04am and 1:20am coexist at the same moment in time. We had evidence earlier today that 1:04am did indeed exist, but once 1:05am came about, that time was over, and we were heading into the future towards 1:20am, therefore, they don't exist at the same time. Sure, both were observable to us, but we know through calculation that they don't exist at the same time. Maybe there was life on other planets millions of years ago, but then died out, and now we exist for this moment in time. And when we die out, another will pop up, etc etc.

I have no valid objection to the latter part. Just as there are younger and older people, younger and older civilisations, younger and older planets, there will be younger and older ET.

Here is the problem in the theory we are the only life in the universe. It's not founded on any scientific foundation, but on religious sentiment alone. Incidentally, this is why most people who object to the existence of ET tend to be from certain religions(that is relaxing now with the blessing of the Vatican ) The human tries to dictate to the universe what is possible and what isn't possible. He fabricates things, "the chances of life forming again are close to impossible, life on earth is just a miracle of chance" when translated into religious speak that becomes, "God created us as his most special ones and created the Earth for us"

The truth is life occured on this planet within the equivalent of hours(in earth time) of it coming into being. Then the conditions on earth were not as they are today, but still life formed. Thus suggesting this is not some improbable phenomenon, but a rather ordinary phenomenon related to planets. One could even argue there is a teleology.

The logical conclusion to derive is there is no reason to believe that the universe is not teeming with life on planets. Even planets which we think do not harbour life may have some kind of life, as life has shown itself on earth to be be able to form in all kinds of conditions.

So as there is no reason to believe that the universe is not teeming with life, and such a belief is only grounded in faith, it follows that ETH is a valid hypothesis.

It is funny that some humans argue away the existence of other life, and it may turn out in the end we are the fools of the universe

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Most of this stuff is moot anyway. Obviously in the beginning there had to be planets where humanoid life evolved, probably at that point with opposing thumbs even, or some very convenient way to build. However, once advanced life was out there, probably spread out and advancing, in this multiverse, or previous ones (gl2 talks about hyperversals in his book alien minds), then advanced cloning, terraforming planets, even astroids and a whole new game for the universe took place. Don't really believe too much is left up to chance anymore and that many species exist via cloning work. Who knows really what the first, or the first few, if there ever could be imagined that moment, of life forms capable of building and then cloning and space age science looked like, but humanoid forms seem to be the norm, even the preying mantis species some report has a humanoidish form version of it. The point is, things arent really left au naturale any more. Everything is a project including earth.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq


Right, and that is very plausible. As soon has life as naturally evolved somewhere, once it becomes advanced it can colonise the galaxy, intermix with other species of other planets etc. If you look at fermi's paradox it would take ET just 1 million years to colonize the entire galaxy at sub-light speed, so the issue really is moot. There is no reason not to believe that the galaxy, let alone the universe, is teeming with life and there is a constant intercourse going on between all species.

Why does man want to be alone?


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

We don't. Its the slave masters, renegade, bloodline leaders who have entrenched themselves here, and keep us as booty, and under-educated slaves, who they divide and conquer and control, and give psuedo science to, while they keep us with illnesses, crippled dna, wars and poor nutrition as disposable burnt out light bulbs to do their dirty work. And you really want to get into specifics, look into the Superman Project and Montaulk and read up on the living game, and see how they enslave us over and over again, akin to how John Lear talks about a soul trap machine. Not pretty. We need freedom. Some of the galactic presence is monitoring, and I hope, working on this agenda. We need to be free, advance and grow into a cosmic race, that looks after its own, embracing perhaps a grass roots version of the venus project, and isn't seen as primitive enablers for the renegades. We also need to ask for help from the positive people up there.

Because being kept like dumbed down serfs isn't fun or pretty!

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

You say gravity is due to mass.

That is what I said as well that we make a scientific generalization between mass and gravity. It may turn out that mass has nothing to do with gravity, that is logically possible, but at the moment because mass and gravity are observed together we generalise and establish relationships of invariable concomitance. We do the same with time, as time flows forwards on our planet, we assume that time is flowing forwards on every planet. Again, according to scientific logic, it is a valid generalization.

Similarly, we know there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between the conditions on life on our planet and the conditions of life on other planets, and therefore just as we can conclude gravity on another planet, we can generalise life on an earth-like planet.

Yes, but when I say you comparing "apples to oranges", I mean through actual evidence at hand. A hypothesis always starts with assumption, but doesn't become valid until something can be observed and tested.

Well the diference is here you know how the cake bakes and how the ingrediants are mixed together. However, in the cake of life and the ingrediants of the conditions of our planet we don't actually know how it all happens. So we cannot really say how life happens, what conditions are required, what combinations and permutations, what chances etc etc All of this is unknown. The only thing we can know that life on planet is a known phenomenon, and we have no reason to believe that it cannot happen on another planet.

Right. I do believe that there is life on other planets in the Universe, but that's from my own faith. We know what conditions are needed to look for life, but again, we don't know for certain that it even exist. And with what technology we have right now, we can't detect anything. So, we're basing a hypothesis on assumption(faith), which doesn't validate anything. Einsteins Theory of Relativity is just that, a theory, but we have corroborated evidence to support his claims, and in turn, his theory/hypothesis becomes valid through experimentation and testing. Its not 100% law just yet, but it is valid non-the-less.

Again I said about why I am cautious with the qualification earth-like, but there is no reason to believe that a planet like Mars or Venus cannot support some kind of life. We cannot say for certain because we have not been there. Indeed, we might be told what is there, but that is subject to whether you believe it or not.

And that's my point. I'm not telling you that you're wrong, but I am saying the hypothesis isn't valid.

Here is the problem in the theory we are the only life in the universe. It's not founded on any scientific foundation, but on religious sentiment alone.

Actually, with all do respect, I think you have it turned around. Having something become "valid" is more in tune with science, while "faith" lies more towards religion.

The truth is life occured on this planet within the equivalent of hours(in earth time) of it coming into being. Then the conditions on earth were not as they are today, but still life formed. Thus suggesting this is not some improbable phenomenon, but a rather ordinary phenomenon related to planets. One could even argue there is a teleology.

Well, we are all apart of the homeostasis of this planet, so its not out of the question. But this discussion is for conscious life, that is intelligent enough to venture outside its host(planet).

So as there is no reason to believe that the universe is not teeming with life, and such a belief is only grounded in faith, it follows that ETH is a valid hypothesis.

Hehe, no, it doesn't show any sort of validity, just assumption. And that's my major point, that this is very much a hypothesis, but in no way is it valid.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by TravisT]

reply to post by mystiq


I absolutely agree. The whole of the the "unexplained, mysterious" is a disinformation strategy to keep everything that we are not supposed to know in a mysterious domain. You will find not ony skeptics but even believers fall into this trap, "Oh I believe it, but there is no proof" The idea is to keep such matters relegated to the category of faith, but not let it interfere with the real world. This is why our "masters" allow open discussion on ET, paranormal, government cover up and even the existence of the "masters" themselves, because there is no proof for anything and using their impossible standards of ever proving any of it. Even if you had infinite evidence, you could still not prove any of it.

So you are right we have been given a pseudoscience which keeps us in in place and prevents us from learning any of the truths of our existence. Everyhing we are kept away from and told to believe to be absurd, is pursued behind our backs. Quantum teleportation, antigravity, ZPE, stargates, remote viewing, you name it, the government is doing it. There is such a vast difference between us and our masters. Their technology, their abilities, their knowledge is significantly superior to ours.

But no matter how much they deceive us we still have the freedom to transcend their systems purely through the power of independent thought. I think it is a huge shame that independent thinking is not taught in our schools and colleges, and instead we are taught what to know, imagine a whole generation of humans who can think critically and independently, they will see through the BS in society right away.



[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
Hardly. There is a vast difference between occasional visitors not being well documented or covered up and and entire advanced civilizations of permanent residents going unnoticed.

Not at all. You are making assumptions both about ETs and CTs that you have no basis to make.

You can't recognize the difference between the small numbers of ET visitors it would take to account for a UFO presence here remaining relatively unnoticed and the huge number of phantom residents it would take to account for an entire civilization of secret cryptoterrestrials, more technologically advanced than humans, somewhere on earth remaining hidden? There is no "assumption" that this is a vast difference - there is a vast difference! One is logistically quite simple, the other is virtually impossible.

Originally posted by Malcram
Again, there is a vast difference between ET visitors who perhaps don't mind being seen because they can leave the planet and an advanced cryptoterrestrial civilization, which obviously wants to remain hidden, flying their craft lit up like Christmas trees over major cities.

No, there isn't. Again, you are making assumptions about ETs and CTs, in particular their psychology and intentions, you have no basis to make.

That is the second time you have said I made assumptions but I note that neither time have you been specific about how. Here, again, there is no assumption because if ET visitors came from off planet, barring accident, they can also leave the planet (no assumption). That they are seen regularly over populated areas and sometimes actively engage with aircraft etc shows they don't always mind being seen (no assumption). If a more advanced cryptoterrestrial civilization exists on earth, and has done throughout human history, then, seeing as they could openly make their presence known, yet haven't, and remain hidden, they must not wish to make their presence known (no assumption).

Originally posted by Malcram
No one is saying that we are the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet, but it is absurd to suggest that the idea an entire civilization of cryptoterrestrials...is 'as logical' and reasonable as occassional ET visitors to earth as an explanation for the UFO phenomenon.

First, I did not say anyone was. Trademark distortion.

Distortion? Error at most. Understandable since you said the following:

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

it is just as reasonable and logical to believe we are not the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet

Looks like you are making a rebuttal to me. Or are you just making small talk?

And again, you are making assumptions you have no basis to make. It is no more absurd than the extraterrestial hypothesis....

So you say, but I have demonstrated that it is. You find a huge pile of elephant poo in your garden. I am claiming it is more logical that it has come from an elephant from a local zoo, you are claiming it is more logical that the giant herd of invisible Woolly Mammoths that live in your attic did it . It's possible. It's not "as logical". There are many more complications.

the only reason you or Child believe it to be is because you are forced to make vast assumptions in order to pretend that the ETH is the only logical explanation.

Such as? Again statements without validation.

In fact, Cryptoterrestrials have a lot less complications than extraterrestrials.

LOL. That's really very funny.

For instance, logically speaking, which is more likely to have an interest in human activity (especially nuclear weapons, to use your example from earlier) on this planet?

Bait and switch. That's not a "for instance". You just said that there are a lot less complications with the cryptoterrestrials. What you describe here is not a complication. You have switched issues. Now you are discussing motivation. The complications for the entire civilization of hidden cryptoterrestrials are vast compared to a few ET visitors which is why it has to only be considered if the ETH is rendered invalid by the evidence. It isn't. And so it's illegitimate to try to support the crypto-T theory by talking about who would be most likely to care about nuclear installations. You have to prove they would be the most likely, the most logical, before you can discuss supposed motivations. This you have not done, you've just made claims. And this attempt to support the theory by an appeal to supposed motivation is logically invalid. Besides, their motivation would be your assumption.

I realize you are playing devil's advocate SC, but the claim you are making to that end is quite ridiculous. Demonstrably so. I'm relieved it isn't the view you actually hold. That said, it's so daft I'm not sure I can be bothered engaging with it much longer, especially as I know you don't even believe what you are saying and so it's largely a waste of time and a diversion from the thread topic.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]

Right, and that is very plausible. As soon has life as naturally evolved somewhere, once it becomes advanced it can colonise the galaxy, intermix with other species of other planets etc. If you look at fermi's paradox it would take ET just 1 million years to colonize the entire galaxy at sub-light speed, so the issue really is moot

its not as simple as that!

paradox is the key word..

and what is that paradox based upon?

Originally posted by Malcram
You can't recognize the difference between the small numbers of ET visitors...and the huge number of phantom residents it would take to account for an entire civilization of secret cryptoterrestrials

Again, you are making an assumption about the numbers of both ET and CT, neither of which you have any knowing.

Originally posted by Malcram
That they are seen regularly over populated areas and sometimes actively engage with aircraft etc shows they don't always mind being seen (no assumption).

This is an assumption. You do not know if these sightings and encounters were accidents or intentional. You do not know the psychology of the non-human-intelligence behind it. So you assume they don't mind being seen or that they wish to remain hidden.

Originally posted by Malcram
You find a huge pile of elephant poo in your garden. I am claiming it is more logical that it has come from an elephant from a local zoo, you are claiming it is more logical that the giant herd of invisible Woolly Mammoths that live in your attic did it It's possible. It's not "as logical". There are many more complications.

That is not what I have claimed at all or anything akin to that. You have used an analogy that does not fit so you may dismiss a theory you do not subscribe to, and continue pretending your pet theory is the best one.

Originally posted by Malcram
You just said that there are a lot less complications with the cryptoterrestrials. What you describe here is not a complication. You have switched issues. Now you are discussing motivation.

Which you have been doing the entire time to dismiss the CTH and support the ETH.

Originally posted by Malcram
The complications for the entire civilization of hidden cryptoterrestrials are vast compared to a few ET visitors which is why it has to only be considered if the ETH is rendered invalid by the evidence. It isn't.

So, no other theory but the ETH can be considered unless it is rendered invalid by the evidence? Using your own arguments and logic, that makes no sense, as you can form no logical objection to the CTH.

Originally posted by Malcram
And so it's illegitimate to try to support the crypto-T theory by talking about who would be most likely to care about nuclear installations...

And yet you claim this very thing supports the ETH. You have used motivation and psychology repeatedly. ETs would not mind being seen over nuclear installations by CTs would, or so you claim.

Yes, but when I say you comparing "apples to oranges", I mean through actual evidence at hand. A hypothesis always starts with assumption, but doesn't become valid until something can be observed and tested.

You've got it the other way around:

1) An observation is made
2) A hypothesis is made to explain it
3) The hypothesis is tested

Now how a hypothesis is tested can be done in many ways. You can do an actual experiment or you can do a thought experiment(Such as Einstein or Schrodinger) But it also true no matter how much you test a hypothesis, it cannot be proven to be true. Thus the addition of the experiment(3) does not make any difference because you will NOT actually prove anything through the experiment.

A more valid means of doing science then is:

1) Making an observation
2) Drawing an inference from the observation

This takes out the hypothetical factor, because one can build up several hypothesis to explain an observation, and grounds it purely in the observable world. I especially admire how the Indian logicians did it, they would observe that a magnet causes a needle to move and would conclude, "the needle has been caused to move by an invisible exchange between the magnet and the needle" They used that same explanation for all unobservables, "the movement of water in a planet", "the mental activity in the mind" because by "hypothesising" you will be invariably shown to be wrong e.g., magnetism is not a force which is in the magnet, it is a field, and even that is wrong. It is an exchange of quantum states between the magnet and the field, and even that is wrong.

The problem with our accepted scientific method is that it is pseudoscientific, whatever it proves is never proven and falsified with every scientific discovery. However, using rational scientific logic, one only works with observables, draws inferences of unknowns that within the observable and says nothing about the unobservables(unknown unknown)

So the scientific generalization that we make between mass and gravity, smoke(of the regular kind) and fire, space and time, heat and light, particle and wave are just as valid as the generalization between planet and life.

Right. I do believe that there is life on other planets in the Universe, but that's from my own faith. We know what conditions are needed to look for life, but again, we don't know for certain that it even exist. And with what technology we have right now, we can't detect anything. So, we're basing a hypothesis on assumption(faith), which doesn't validate anything.

No, again its the other way around. A hypothesis is an assumption because it is "hypothetical" you coming up with a theory to explain something. To explain gravity for example there can a classical physics hypothesis, a GR hypothesis, a QM hypothesis and a theoretical physics hypothesis. An inference, on the other hand, is not a hypothesis, but deductively arrived at through observables.

Let's see how we can determine the existence of atoms using observables. If suppose matter is continious, then it should be theoretically possible to split up a grain of rice into infinite parts, and then from those infinite parts build up a mountain. But that is absurd because how can you start with a grain of race and end up with a mountain. It therefore follows that matter is discontinious, it is built of indivisible units.

This is a conclusion that can be arrived at through pure rational logic. It requires no hypothesis or experimentation.

Actually, with all do respect, I think you have it turned around. Having something become "valid" is more in tune with science, while "faith" lies more towards religion.

The divide between faith and science is not as clear-cut as you suggest. There is faith in science as well, it cannot prove anything, yet it still asserts an assumption. This is no different to religion who can't prove anything, but still asserts an assumption.

The problem is with the scientific method you are arguing for. It is inherently flawed. On the other hand, pure scientific logic does not assert assumption, but only draws valid conclusions from observables.

Well, we are all apart of the homeostasis of this planet, so its not out of the question. But this discussion is for conscious life, that is intelligent enough to venture outside its host(planet).

You make the errornous assumption that the world is homestatic. We know that is not true, there are hot zones, cold zones, dry zones, wet zones and all zones support life. Similarily, the planet itself goes through various climate and tectonic changes. At one time this planet was just like Mars, hot, volcanic, and still it could support life. So it does not seem observation support your hypothesis of an ideal planet condition to support life, it seems life happens in all kinds of conditions.

Hehe, no, it doesn't show any sort of validity, just assumption. And that's my major point, that this is very much a hypothesis, but in no way is it valid.

I am really enjoying this discussion with you. You have put up much better arguments than others and kept me on my toes. I will reiterate that ETH is a valid hypothesis because

1) The generalization that life and planet are invariably concomitant is as scientific as any other generalization in science which also looks for invariable concomitance.

2) Life did emerge on this planet, almost immediately and it can emerge in a diverse range of conditions: hot, cold, dry, wet etc

3) There is no reason to believe that this universe is NOT teeming with life.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


1) An observation is made
2) A hypothesis is made to explain it
3) The hypothesis is tested

let me correct this somewhat in regards to obervation

1)Question about an unknown is required
2) Then an an obervation is calculated for the 2nd time! and you need to see it befor you can question it again
3) You hypothersise Why it is infact making you question it and set out to understand "it"
3) The hypotheris is only tested when questions ones on obervation..

In that respect one can not rule in or out the probible outcome of ones hypothasis based on oberveration alone..

You have to add into all equations a erorr factor

Like the H partical in physics.. Hugaens partical or "eqaution" is the god partical they are looking for as it makes sens on paper but we can not find it yet in our physical universe

always room for error and its not based on obervation but logic..

obervation is DOING someting not the Reason for why it is infact True to be.

But i do understand your reason for this, but im still yet to understand or you have failed to give me your Methord.

could you explain your Methord please without using abjectives

heaugens p / Higgs long day!

[edit on 1-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

Originally posted by Malcram
You find a huge pile of elephant poo in your garden. I am claiming it is more logical that it has come from an elephant from a local zoo, you are claiming it is more logical that the giant herd of invisible Woolly Mammoths that live in your attic did it.

A far better analogy would be finding a large pile of feces on the ground. You claim it came from an elephant in the zoo. I say neither of us have ever been to that zoo, so we're not even sure if they have elephants. You say that other zoos have elephants so this one has to have elephants. I say why look for escaped zoo animals when we could look for large wild animals here. You retort that is absurd and the only logical explanation is an elephant from the zoo and we cannot even consider other possibilities until we prove it is not an elephant.

1) The generalization that life and planet are invariably concomitant is as scientific as any other generalization in science which also looks for invariable concomitance.

2) Life did emerge on this planet, almost immediately and it can emerge in a diverse range of conditions: hot, cold, dry, wet etc

3) There is no reason to believe that this universe is NOT teeming with life.


1) This is down to humans preseption only

2) Yes it did "only on this planet" lets keep things simple

3) There is also no reason to belive that the universe IS teaming with life

Its about the methord not your own opinion based on generalization!

if that was the case then the world is still flat as it was generlised that it was....untill proven compleatly wrong..

as i said we could infact be ALONE in our entire universe and this IS infact the only planet with life on it...

But life could come from another dimetion/time.. and still give rise to a human looking alien..

You see my point?

reply to post by mystiq


Most of this stuff is moot anyway. Obviously in the beginning there had to be planets where humanoid life evolved

yes its called earth... does not mean there is life other human type beings in outer space. we can only postulate that based on some things we understand to be closer to logical than not...

every alien that comes to earth may not come from outerspace..

did you ever think of that? just as much a posiblity as life outside of earth and much more probibly due too time / dimentions

so we could argue that there is no life in space only us and the reason for every alien looking like is is because they come from our altard relatiy/dimenion in another universe

; )

so i would not call it moot and make it as simple as that, or many brains on this planet would just say well Yea there is life in the universe.. and stop asking..

its far to complex to just say coz the sky is blue it infact means it is when its only your precption that makes it blue..

ect ect ect

reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Most of this stuff is moot anyway. Obviously in the beginning there had to be planets where humanoid life evolved

yes its called earth... does not mean there is life other human type beings in outer space. we can only postulate that based on some things we understand to be closer to logical than not...

This is a credo or opinion. Enough said.

Edit to add: personal testimony and actual photos of mars, such as the crowned face, forrests and lakes, and any numbers of others that have trillions of chances to one of being random natural formations argues against that opinion.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by mystiq]